Who makes the laws, what rules and principles constrain the lawmakers, and what makes a law morally legitimate?

With respect to same-sex “marriage” how does ‘s post approach the role of the Supreme Court? Here is what he says.

The Supreme Court will announce next week their decision if gay couples should have the same rights to marry as straight couples. Since no rights of marriage were ever mentioned in the Bill of Rights, I surmise they will decide if gay marriage poses any risks of harm to others.

Is that appropriate? Is what says he doing really what is doing? Well, sort of. suggests that many parents are fearful that their children will learn that it is okay to be homosexual and become a homosexual, but he spends more ink expressing his concern about sexually transmitted diseases, suggesting that “marriage” will help homosexuals avoid disease.

‘s post, however, does not address a specific issue. Instead, talks to the principles that distinguish between the rule of men and the rule of law. What is apparent in ‘s post is that he has abandoned those principles. Is he unaware of them? I doubt it. I think has just given up any hope judges will apply those principles. Consider his answer to one of his own questions.

Is it wise for the government to get out of the business of marriage licenses? Yes, of course this is my personal opinion.

Could the government get out of the marriage business? Well, government does not exist to operate businesses. Government’s legitimate business is protecting the rights of the People. The government’s role in licensing marriages is protecting the rights of children, not endorsing sexual relationships.

What is the harm from same-sex “marriage”? In order to advocate their fantasy, homosexual rights advocates have also sown confusion about the purpose of the law. As observed “no rights of marriage were ever mentioned in the Bill of Rights.” The Tenth Amendment, however, clearly states the Federal courts have no jurisdiction. Same-sex “marriage” is an issue for the states to resolve in the legislatures. The Supreme Court is not God. No judges are gods. When they invent rights out of thin air, they endanger our nation. Instead of the rule of law, such judges reduce us to the rule of men.

25 thoughts on “WHAT SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” — CONTRASTING APPROACHES”

“What happens when honorable so-and-so’s no longer honor their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?”

Tom, All you have to do is read or listen to the current news to know what happens. Thanks for your excellent commentary on the issue. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme “Gods” decide,

The reason I spent so much ink on STD is to call attention to the real issue of homosexuality. STD , communicable diseases are never mentioned in the news or on all the Hollywood soap operas depicting only loving relationships. That is probably the reason the polls have risen in the past five years to favor gay marriage. I wonder if the polls would be opposite if Hollywood would include the reality aspects and portray the effects of STD risks. in their scripts. .

Read the CDC articles I referenced, That is what the Supreme Court should consider when they pass the law and make it a Federal en forcible civil right issue at taxpayers expense,, In other words, we will pay taxes to enforce the cause and cure of STD diseases.such as HIV which has had 600,000 recorded deaths since HIV was first identified.

SW – Your concern about Sexually Transmitted Diseases is a valid one, in a general public health context. However, I’m not at all sure what it has to do with the legal issue before the Court re same sex marriages. STDs have been a scourge for centuries – they are largely transmitted heterosexually. Are you saying that heterosexual marriage should be banned? Even HIV and AIDS, although initially prevalent within the homosexual population, are capable of heterosexual transmission. So where are you going with this?

I am a happily married heterosexual, and if your position is that STD’s mean that sexual relations between married people should be banned, I would take exception.

It seems to me that the logical end point of your concern should be that same sex marriage should be encouraged by the state as a public health measure, in order to discourage promiscuity, a condition that tends to propagate STDs far more than monogamy, whether among heterosexuals, or homosexuals. I reckon that epidemiologists would be hard put to cite examples of monogamous, disease-free persons of either sex in committed, faithful relationships ever passing STDs from one to the other.

novoscout
Heterosexual couples who practice sexual fidelity have no STD risk according to the CDC reference articles I posted. I also agreed with your statement that marriage of gays might help reduce the risk of STD. The mortal dilemma then arises why doesn’t sexual fidelity exist if the couples, gay or heterosexual, love each other? .People who play around seem to convict themselves when they obtain a STD. You agree?
Regards and goodwill blogging.

There seems to be a fairly persistent pervasiveness of active mischaracterization and/or passive misunderstanding about the issues before the Court. The issues are whether the laws of those states that ban same sex marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by granting particular legal rights and status to some persons and not others, and, if not, are states that ban same sex marriage required to honor same sex marriages that occur lawfully in other states. The legal dispute has nothing to do with the religious institution of marriage, a rite that is outside the legal discussion and that is within the purview of religious institutions. Regardless of which way the Court rules, a church that forbids same sex religious marriages will continue to forbid them and, if there is a church somewhere that requires (I can’t think of any, but California must have at least a few) or permits same sex marriage, it will be able to continue to require same sex marriages.

I suppose that some of the confusion arises because the state status and ceremony uses the same word (“marriage”) as do religious institutions. But the two are quite different things serving different purposes. Had the state(s) always referred to the licenses and status that they dispense by some other name, people probably wouldn’t be as easily misled as they are.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(from => http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html)

Note the date this amendment was ratified by the states. The notion that the people living in the United States at that time expected this amendment to be used to provide legal sanctification for same-sex “marriage” is simply absurd. Had they thought that, the 14th Amendment never would have become part of the Constitution, and everyone knows that, including you.

Is there anything in this amendment or in the history of its drafting and passage that suggests in the slightest that there is a “right” of homosexuals to marry each other? Of course not. At the time of time the passage of the 14th Amendment, people still understood that the anus is not a sex organ.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed at the end of the Civil War. They were intended to put an end to the enslavement of blacks. This portion of 15th Amendment is explicit.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

The mere possibility that homosexuality may be the result of a genetic condition does not make homosexuals of race of people. Further, the mere fact that two people want to marry each other does not mean they can marry each other. Even if two children are of the opposite sex, the law prevents their marriage. Because the marriage of close relatives poses moral and genetic concerns, the law prevents such marriages. We don’t allow two people of the same sex to marry simply because their union does not meet the minimal biological conditions required for a healthy marriage. When two people of the same-sex want to copulate with each other, there is something wrong. Whether the problem is a moral one or a genetic anomaly, it is foolish to pretend that there is no problem. Such a pretense just gets the way of finding a solution or ameliorating the suffering. For example, until an alcoholic refuses to admit his boozing is messing up his life, he will not quit. Nevertheless, some people believe alcoholism is due to a genetic condition. So in the modern scheme of law — the living and breathing Constitution — I suppose alcoholics have a 14th Amendment right to drink on the job.

The issues are whether the laws of those states that ban same sex marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by granting particular legal rights and status to some persons and not others, and, if not, are states that ban same sex marriage required to honor same sex marriages that occur lawfully in other states.

I say this which is also correct..

The real issue should be whether it is wise or foolish to pass a law that we know has STD health risks for both the participants and innocent people just to make it fair for everyone to have the same rights.and not harm anyone’s feelings. Then to make every taxpayer help pay the costs to cure diseases.because those who engage in the sexual acts do not take reasonable precautions to avoid being infected. In other words the Supreme Court will make it a Federal Civil fights offence to harm someones feelings.

Tom – I don’t think this issue is about the right to vote. Homosexuals have voted in this country for quite some time. The XIVth addressed a range of issues, but the core point is that states cannot deny equal protection of laws to citizens. There are exceptions – states can justify differential treatment under some conditions, and that issue is now before the Court. The states defending their bans on same-sex marriage offered justifications for this policy choice. We’ll see what the Court makes of them in the coming days or weeks.

As for the Xth Amendment (you raised this in the post, I think), it doesn’t apply here in that the gravamen of the complaint was the XIVth Amendment. States certainly have reserved powers under the Xth (as I mentioned, I have successfully defended those rights in the federal courts in the past). However, the Xth is not a license to violate the XIVth.

You are entitled to think what you want, but I think what you are defending is plainly dishonest. In the past, America enslaved blacks, and the courts defended the “right” to enslave black, going beyond what the Constitution intended.

When men want what they want badly enough, they will say anything is true, so long as that “truth” gets them what they want.

How exactly is my comment “dishonest”, Tom? I wasn’t “defending” anything. I was trying to clarify for you that the bolded language in your comment applied to voting rights, not same-sex marriage issues. This really is not about voting and the issue before the court really is the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the issue of states that deny legal status of marriage to same-sex couples. These points seem factual and uncontroversial.

As for the historic issue of slavery, the Constitution was drafted in a context that attempted to skirt the issue. It couldn’t be avoided altogether, so we got the compromise concerning how the pre-XIIIth Amendment Republic would count the slave population in the decennial census. However, prior to the enactment of the XIIIth Amendment, there really wasn’t much doubt that slavery was permitted, at least in the states that permitted it. The controversies of the pre-Civil War era were whether the extension of slavery to vast federal territories not yet states could be curtailed by the federal government.

Tom
Your point is to question how to determine what is a good law. So how could a good law be good if it has a high risk of creating a high risk of STD? Is STD good or bad? How can something bad be good? I am confused. Oh well.

Courts don’t make the law, they interpret existing law. Of course, some lawyers will argue otherwise. They say that because when a court decides a case that case establishes a precedent. That is, when courts decide various cases, how the courts decide those cases spells out in detail what the law actually means in practice. However, there is a distinct difference between trying to make sense of an existing law and making up one of your own. When the courts say same-sex “marriage” is a right, they cannot point to any document that establishes such a right. The 14th Amendment? That is just plain ordinary in your face lying (See how I replied to scout above.).

Think about the difference between the rule of law and the rule of men. Under the rule of law, we can have rights that others must respect. When we have the rule of men, all that matters is who has the power to demand and get what they want. That is true even when a government rules according to the will of the majority. Majoritarian tyranny is tyranny, and such a tyranny (It occurs when men lack honor.) usually descends into greater and greater tyranny.

Tom,
If the Supreme Court decides for the reasons I described, the only way it will be considered by me and millions more like me ,as a travesty of law. In time after everybody calms down, the law will be meaningless because those who disagree are not going to change their perceptions one iota and will protect their kids as they see fit. The only difference is they will be legally described to be a legal bigot instead of a concerned parent.,

To some extent I am guessing as to your position on this subject. It quite apparent that you don’t like the notion that folks who think homosexuality wrong will be called bigots. It is also true the you are concerned about the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. However, what is not clear is how you think the court should decide on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The family is the foundation unit of any society. To build a strong brick building requires strong bricks and sound mortar. Similarly, to build a strong society requires loving families and honorable laws that rights and obligations that bind people together. Any society that allows meebots to define the family and create whimsical laws will soon crumble and fragment, just as ours is beginning to do.

My personal position on same sex is I have given up trying to comprehend or judge homosexuals.

As a child growing up living near the Chicago downtown and waking up to deliver newspapers at 4:30 AM, I was warned about them. I personally was approached numerous times by homosexual pedophiles and by the grace of God and warnings from adults and friends learned to just ignore them and run away when I was approached.

Later in life I worked with them and was never approached because they never seemed to be able to mix socially with people who were not gays. I did notice that it seemed, at least to me that most homosexual couples often times consisted of an older and younger person.

I have had many discussions with younger people over the years and notice they seem to have a greater tolerance for gays. When I caution them not to let them around their children, they tell me I am homophobic and there is nothing to fear because that is the way they were born. When I tell them about my personal experiences of being approached, they tell me there are also child predators who are not gay.

When I look at the statistics, it is apparent that male gays far outnumber lesbians in pedophile incidents. Male pedophiles incidents far outnumber all others incidents of pedophile incidents. The statistics never do show the number of unreported incidents.

Am I a bigoted homophobic or someone who has grown up and experienced being approached by pedophiles? Why they are what they are as I said, I cannot comprehend. I do however worry about children being influenced in school by being taught that gay is nature and not nurture because if they are wrong, children are then in effect being nurtured by school teachers.

Notice I do not say anything about religious beliefs because even the Pope said ”who am I to judge them” but still does not approve their lifestyles. I no longer judge them, but I still tell my grandkids what I experienced as a boy and warn everyone about STD.

That is my take on homosexuality. Wise or foolish, you decide. This much I do know, personal opinions have certainly changed in the world in my lifetime, but if you study the proverbs as I have, not much has really changed in regards to humans continuing to repeat making the same old foolish decisions over and over in their lives. Will today’s new tolerance for gays make much difference in time about straights not fearing homosexuals and totally welcoming them into their personal family circles? I doubt it.

I also noticed from my blog statistics that there are not many people really interested in proverbs. But then again, I still keep trying to make it interesting hoping someday people will wise up and think twice before they act. For example, become infected with a STD.

Why do I mix politics with religion? I have read the Bible, and I don’t think of politics and Christianity as entirely separate matters. The Bible speaks of the Kingdom of God. A kingdom is a type of political system. As the Revelation explains, Jesus intends to rule.

The first five books of the Bible provide the Mosaic Code, the law of ancient Israel. Judges describes how God ruled Israel before that nation had a king. King David wrote many of the Psalms. King Solomon wrote three books. The books of Chronicles, Kings, and Samuel describe the history of the kings of Israel. The Gospels tell us that in His First Coming Jesus died as the result of a political act. When almost all of the books in the Bible touch in some way on how we should interact with each other, how can a Christian in good conscience ignore the importance of government? Doesn’t government exist to use force to influence human behavior? If that is true, then if we do nothing and let our government abuse people, we sin.

We live in a still wealthy society. When I consider that too many of us want to enjoy that wealth and not be troubled, I think of this passage.

Revelation 3:14-22 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Lukewarm Church
14 “And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write,

‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

22 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’”

I don’t know how to get people interested in Proverbs. I just suppose that if God wants us to take an interest He will find a way to pique our interest (He did mine.). Meanwhile, we can only do our best.

Matthew 5:13-16 New King James Version (NKJV)

Believers Are Salt and Light
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.

14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

It is God who saves. We just tell people about the Bible and baptize them.

Tom – again you misunderstand the issue in the pending case. No matter how the Court decides, it will not say that “same sex marriage is a right.” The issue is whether a state government can dispense legal privileges to certain persons, but not others, in the particular context of secular marriage status.

PS – it seems the “novascout” moniker has crept back into my submissions here. I was overseas for a couple of weeks and absence seems to have made the system forget the Scout handle. I apologize for any confusion, and, if I were more of an adept technically, would find a way to fix it. Perhaps over the weekend I can stumble through to a solution.

I don’t pay attention. I know who you are. I suppose it may confuse those who read your comments. I suspect you have two accounts with the same password, and you occasionally slip up and logon to the wrong account.

The issue before the Court is simple. Sophists have just complicated the matter to further their own ends. When the states ratified the 14th Amendment, did they have even the faintest idea anyone would use that amend to legalize same-sex “marriage?” Of course not. Therefore, the 14th Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex “marriage.” Instead getting what they want from state legislatures, some dishonorable folks are abusing our court system and pretending the 14th amendment somehow applies to homosexuals the way it does to blacks. Yet we all know that if the people who wrote the 14th Amendment had known how our courts would abuse their handiwork, they would have been horrified.

Thanks for your comment. It has really added insight to this legal issue and quite frankly given me a laugh. Please do not be offended by my twisting your words in the same manner the Supreme Court, the highest legal authority in the US, is about to do when they announce their final decision of this great challenge they have been debating for six months, and that is this.

How to twist words to make a valid legal argument that will compare thunder (opposite sexes) with cantaloupes (same sexes) to make people believe they are the same.

Also, there are other tragic consequences other than STD in this issue to consider. One being that by doing so, anyone who voices an opinion to oppose their ruling will become a legal Homophobic bigot subject to Federal civil right penalties if they say or refuse to comply with the great legal decision. That is because by doing so, it may bruise the skin of the cantaloupes.

King Solomon is probably going to have a good laugh when he hears this one if his spirit is somewhere upstairs. If not he is going to do a double roll when the news hits him if his spirit is still in some box down below. Oh well.

I gently reject your comparisons, sir. IMO thunder is the absurdity of constructing a secular definition for a religious term or word. And a cantaloup is the sad reality of choosing an unchaste lifestyle. The thinking is that “somehow” there is a governmental solution that will morph the nature of a cantaloupe into that of a field mouse, and at the same time change that pitiful creature into a being that depends on huge electrical storms for its very existence. Both problems lie beyond the abilities of mortals to resolve, yet they will “try”……. and in that trying cause irreparable and eternal harm. IMO.

That this is a SCOTUS issue for anything other than states rights, IMO, is

Sorry, I apparently misunderstood your analogy. This much I believe for certain in regards to the upcoming Supreme Court decision, no religious reasoning will be considered in their decision. Thanks for clarifying.

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.